In God We Doubt
English | publisher = Balancing Point Publishers | date = November 1, 2010 | editions = 1 (1st) | genre = Non-fiction > Polemic; Antireligion | mediatype = Print (paperback) | pages = 311 pp | ratings = Nova Times The Lovian News | previous = | next = }} In God We Doubt is a book by Edward Hannis that tackles the issue of religion, namely Christianity, by attempting to prove that it is incorrect and that it does no good for humanity. The book was written in a timespan of only a few months, though Hannis claims that many of ideas described in the book had been fully formed within his mind over a few years. The book is the first publication ever made under Balancing Point Publishers, and is Hannis' first book ever written. The book's title, In God We Doubt, is a reference to the motto on US coins: In God We Trust. Content Introduction The introduction describes why Hannis wrote the book. In it, he describes the problem atheists face, and how religion is destroying even the most tolerant societies in the world. Here, he describes hatred against atheists, and what he believes to be the goal atheists should have in mind. :Atheists are the most hated upon group of people in the world, more so than any other historic group. This is not to say that they have suffered as much (there has, of course, never been an Atheist holocaust), but they are still hated by any other group in the world, and logically so. If you are not atheist, you are theist, and if you are theist, your religion instructs you to cast out those who do not support your cause. The only exceptions to this are the rare peaceful religions, though these can hardly be counted, taken that they are peaceful to anyone. :''I live in the United States of America, a country known worldwide for its historical standpoint on religion. The very first amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. However, nowadays it would seem that the right is to believe in any God you want, and that not believing in God is not an option. :''There is proof to this. In the US, you can find signs of religious supporting, and atheistic distrust, almost anywhere. Every day, children recite the pledge of allegiance, which states “one nation under God.” Congress prays while it is in session. Only 49% of America would vote for an atheist president, regardless if they were a good candidate or not. A president of the United States once said, “I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.” Every single coin in the nation says “In God We Trust.” :''My goal with this book is change all that. It is grand time that atheism be given its proper respect, and that people move away from religion because it is simply wrong. It is time that people break free from the clutches of religion and accept that you don't need an invisible man in the sky to live your life. It's time that the government puts new words on coins: :“In God We Doubt.”'' :... Arguments on God In his first chapter, Hannis describes certain arguments on religion that were not logically placed anywhere else. The first argument mentioned is "God By Default", a term Hannis coined to describe the tendency of Christians to believe that holes in science are proof for religion. :God By Default is a general argument, one that in itself proves that religion is simply a tentative explanation, one that is at a lower level of acceptance than science. The only “proof” for common arguments, such as that of the argument from design, uses God By Default. It is quite simple: what science can't prove, God does. It can also be rephrased as, “when in doubt, God.” Going back the the argument from design, theists argue that whenever there are holes in evolution, areas where we have no conclusive fossil records, there is proof that God must have done the change. This argument is feeble and overdemanding. It is quite literally impossible to find all the fossils of all life to ever exist on this planet. The situation for having a fossil is, quite literally, a perfect storm. :... Another concept described in the book is one based upon the problem with arguments "proving" the existence of God: they, at best, could only prove that God in general could exist, not that any individual God is true. Hannis describes this concept as the "We're All Going to Hell" concept: that no matter what, all cultures other than your own (exception of atheism, if applicable) will tell you you're going to hell (or equivalent). :No matter what religion you say you are part of, you are inevitably an atheist, and also logically inevitably going to hell, according to anyone else. According to almost every religion in the world, all other religions are false, their members going to hell, and are not listened to by God. It is a situation that many atheists deal with, and one of my favorite arguments to use, because it naturally comes up. ::“So you're an atheist," they'd say. ::“Only to one more degree,” I'd answer. :''Most logical arguments in favor of the existence of God are in favor of God in general, but not the specifics. You may be able to prove that God could eventually possibly have a chance of existing (which is not the case), but you'd never be able to prove that your God is the right one. It's not as if there's any more logical proof for Islam than Christianity. Any argument you bring up for God, you bring up for all Gods. Siding with Jesus means siding with Mohammed, Krishna, Horus, Zeus, and any other God/Godly savior to have ever existed (see “The Savior Template”). :''The only decent explanation I have ever heard was from a priest I once knew, who explained to me that the reality of life after death was limited by the belief of its existence, that is, by believing in a Qu'ranic heaven/hell, you will go there, whereas if you believe in a Christian heaven/hell, your post-mortem reality is located within the confines of Christian ideas of life after death. Alternative realities after death limited by the belief of a person. Coming from a guy who thinks evolution and the Big Bang are way too complicated to be true. :... The chapter concludes with a philosophical fallacy of God, one caused by its own nature. According to Hannis, the very fact that God is omnipotent makes him impossible to exist. :The God Paradox is a paradox created by the three main powers of God: omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence. These three elements, giving God unlimited power, knowledge, and goodness, respectively, make him seem like an idea thing, but this is not the case. In fact, the very power of God makes it impossible for such a thing to exist. :''The paradox is basically completely based upon God's omnipotence. Earlier examples of the problem with this power were described in the “paradox of the stone,” in the form of a question: can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it himself? However, this form of the paradox is easily refutable, though I won't go into detail on that. For more on this, see C.S. Lewis' refutation to the omnipotence paradox. :''My preferred form of the paradox is one described by Dawkins in his The God Delusion, though it is undoubtedly a very old one, simply ignored for its complexity. Here's the situation. :''Let's say that God at his very moment (we'll call him Present God) wants to kill himself in the future (let's call him Future God). Here's the problem: since God is omnipotent, then Present God would be able to kill Future God, but Future God, since he's omnipotent too, he would be able to stop Present God from killing him. One of the two must not be omnipotent, and since they're the same people, just in separate times, it makes no sense. There you have it: paradox. The only way out is to break off the suggestion; to state that God is not omnipotent. :... The Bible & Morality The second section of In God We Doubt, The Bible & Morality, describes how religious people, unless they are evil, do not get morality from the Bible. In the introduction to this section, Hannis writes: :Most Christians argue that the Bible gives them morality; that it gives them a guideline as to how they should live their lives. Unless they are truly sadist, they do not. Christians believe in a series of bizarre stories that are full of contradictions and illogical actions (that are often evil) and that ultimately results in a mess of a guidebook that would best be used as something to keep a fire going. :Before I go into what is actually contained within the Testaments, I would like to point out that it is quite dumb to follow the Bible simply because of its history; the oldest account of the New Testament is in 200 AD, just about two centuries after Jesus. What Christians believe in was the result of the greatest game of telephone ever made. It would be more logical to believe in Odysseus than to believe in Jesus. Also, it is important to note that Jesus never actually said “turn the other cheek.” The first account of that statement, which is Luke 6:29, was: ::τῷ τύπτοντί σε ἐπὶ τὴν σιαγόνα πάρεχε καὶ τὴν ἄλλην, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἴροντός σου τὸ ἱμάτιον καὶ τὸν χιτῶνα μὴ κωλύσῃς. '' :''If you really want to know the word what you believe to be God, learn Greek or Aramaic. Otherwise, what you believe in is the translation, a constantly changing one at that, of what Jesus may have said. Once again, the word of God really isn't so. :... Hannis would continue this section, describing the illogical elements in the Bible, as well as the evil that it encourages, in both the Old and New Testaments. In a brief section, Hannis describes contradictions in the Bible. :There is no lack of contradictions in the Bible. In fact, it would be hard to read through the entire book without finding at least a dozen. Here's just a handful of them. :Here are contradictions on what we should feel about God. ::We should fear God (Matthew 10:28) ::We should love God (Matthew 22:37) ::There is no fear in love (1 John 4:18) :Here are contradictions on what Jesus says about his testaments. ::"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid." (John 5:31) '' ::"Jesus answered: Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid." (John 8:14)'' :And here are some on what Jesus planned to do do on his Earthly tour. ::And Jesus said, "For judgement I am come into this world." (John 9:39) '' ::"I came not to judge the world" (John 12:47) '' :And to think that people devote their lives to this kind of material. :... Hannis concludes this section with a description of what he believes to be the alternative to religion for ethics, in what he calls "Atheist Morality." :Christians often point to the Bible and say that they have their rules right there. I've already proven that for the majority of them, it is not the case. The Bible makes very little sense, and is not at all a guide for morality. As if this were not enough proof, let's disprove a commonly referred-to “statistic”: one that proves that atheists are less ethical, and hence more often in prison. :The test was done on all people going into trial in the United States. In the end, it was found that about 80% of people being convicted were Christian, whereas only 0.2% of them were atheist. Keep in mind that only about 10% of the US is atheist, making Christians far less ethically justified than atheists. No surprise there. :It is important to note that a good action performed by a Christian is ultimately a selfish act: a good act is for your own interest, to go to heaven. If an atheist does something good, it is truly for the sake of goodness. Christianity encourages goodness for one's own sake; Atheism encourages goodness for goodness' sake. :That being said, what should atheists adhere to morally? To answer this, I have 3 rules, which are based upon early concepts by philosophers of ancient civilizations and periods of enlightenment. :# Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself. :# Seek always the truth, and accept nothing without evidence. Minimize postulation to the ultimate postulate: I think therefore I am. :# Maximize the amount happiness in the world; an action should always ultimately cause more happiness than unhappiness. :Though undoubtedly you could think of something to add to this, I personally live my life to these three rules, and I'm sure that many others do. You don't need God to think of these, and you don't need God to maintain them. The Feebleness of Prayer and Miracles In this section of In God We Doubt, Hannis describes arguments on religion that use prayer and miracles as proof for God. He describes this logic as a branch of "God By Default", and that is is not only feeble, but also completely untrue. :Prayer is one of the greatest arguments made by Christians, and justifiably so. It, like most of its arguments, falls under the typical category of “by default God.” People claim that they prayed to God, who then did something awesome, typically in the form of “miracles.” The obvious problem, of course, is that you could just make it up, making it useless in a serious argument on religion. Even the very religions themselves are afraid of people claiming that they have seen God come to them with messages. ::''If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3) :''It is very clear that you cannot seriously argue that response to prayers in the form of miracles can be taken seriously, but let's still give the prayer response argument a shot. :''The common example is that of people being saved from sure death thanks to God. Poor Joe has cancer, but he prays, then God's all happy, and saves him, because he's nice like that. Here are the problems with that. :''First of all, it has been scientifically proven that praying does not help, though a study done by the Templeton Foundation itself. I won't go too far into it, but to summarize, if people do not know that hundreds of others are praying for them, there is no effect on their healing. If people do, however, know that hundreds are praying for them, they suffer a slower healing. For more on this, read Dawkins' The God Delusion, one of the greatest books on atheism. :''Secondly, let's assume that God really did save poor Joe. What about everyone else? What about people who are suffering and dying in the streets, kicked around all their lives? Did God save them? No. The Christian solution? Heaven. That brings up the next logical question: why are people afraid of death? If what's on the other side is better, why be afraid of death? If God was really oh-so-nice, he'd let you die. That way, you're in heaven faster. :''Finally, there's the problem with those who are saved. This argument associates with the “We're All Going to Hell” argument (see earlier), which is that those who do not believe in your God are still saved. According to almost all religions, those of other faiths can pray all they want, they're going to Hell. So, why would God ever save them? Yet, every year, across the world, people of all faiths are saved by their God(s) for whatever problems may come their way. And once you're there, you realize the problem yourself if you're a theist: your only refutation is that they're lying, or that it's chance. And that's exactly what I'm arguing myself. The only arguments proving a religion in the area of divine assistance are the very same arguments disproving its existence altogether. :''On a comedic side note on this subject, I'd like to point out the lovely motto of my local church: ::''PUSH: ::''Pray Until Something Happens :... The History of Religion In this final section, Hannis explains what led to the existence of religion, and the psychological reasons for its creation. He would then go on to prove how all religions are based upon a single religion, one that can be traced as far back as 3000 BC. He describes these similarities as being part of a template, "The Savior Template." :The Savior Template is a term I often use to describe the commonality of certain attributes of religious saviors. For example, guess who the following person is. :“I was born December 25th to a virgin, and my birth was signaled by a star in the east, and I was met by three kings soon after. I became teacher in the temple at age 12, and at age 30 I was baptized by a man who was nicknamed “the baptizer.” This man would later be beheaded. I had 12 disciples, with whom I went about with, performing miracles such as healing the sick, walking on water, and raising the dead. I had nicknames such as “the lamb of god”, “messiah”, “god's anointed son”, the “Alpha and Omega”, among many others. I would be betrayed and killed by crucifixion, and three days later I would ascend into heaven.” :Who would you guess that to be? The first case of this man would be Horus, 3000 BC. Three millenniums before Jesus. Almost all Eurasian cultures preceding Christianity have at least a few of the features named before. To venture no further than the birth of December 25th to a virgin, the following religious characters can be identified: Horus, Attis of Phrygia, Krishna, Mithra of Persia, Tammuz, Adonis, Hermes, Bacchus, Prometheus, even the Buddha, Dionysus, and Heracles. Ancient cultures believed in these characteristics to the point of ridiculousness: Romans/Greeks believed in 4 characters that were born on December 25th to a virgin: Hermes, Prometheus, Dionysus, and Heracles. :... Critical Reception ''In God We Doubt has not yet been given any reviews. Hannis announced that he would not mention his book in La Quotidienne, saying that he felt he was incapable of staying truly objective on it. Category:Book Category:Religion book